After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform • Hacker News Board

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#21

Post by schoen » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

sg47 wrote: post #6

manfredo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

"Doesn't believe in science" is pretty reductionist here.

Most Democrats and Republicans, like everyone else, is operating with heuristics about which risks are especially salient and concerning. Those heuristics are influenced by social biases.

Democrats are more likely to be enthusiastic about the practice of science than Republicans, but that doesn't mean that Democrats always carefully and dispassionately weigh risks as estimated by scientists, or that Republicans always learn about scientists' suggestions and then do the exact opposite.

One thing that you're seeing here is that Republicans have a social bias toward seeing industry and products of industry as not that risky, while Democrats have a reverse bias. In some cases (like nuclear energy and genetic engineering) the Republicans' bias may help them, while in others (like fossil fuels) the Democrats' bias may help them.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#22

Post by mensetmanusman » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

sg47 wrote: post #6

manfredo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

You may have unfortunately fell for a CNN meme, American political parties both ignore science when it goes against their gut feelings.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#23

Post by StreamBright » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #7

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.

Let's move it out from government oversight. Anything gov touches gets super expensive, especially in the US. Best example is the Obamacare website.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare...

Imagine how much cheaper you could have built that website with the same functionality. Now apply the same mental process to nuclear power plants.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#24

Post by StreamBright » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

sg47 wrote: post #3

Republicans will use their fear mongering tactics, point to Chernobyl as an example of why nuclear power is bad. Also, it goes against what their base wants - coal power.

I doubt that you can generalise like this. Their base is anything but consistent, especially on energy.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#25

Post by tomp » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #7

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

Now we just need to make it affordable. Cost overruns seem to be a big problem in the industry. The US recently canceled 2 plants, and we’re struggling to finish the other 2.

Ian the same argument for renewables? Subsidize solar panels to make them affordable... the only difference is, solar panels are smaller so we can iterate faster. Maybe that’s what we need to improve about nuclear...

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#26

Post by StreamBright » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

sg47 wrote: post #6

manfredo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

Well here is another example for you:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-l...

I think your assumption which cohort does not believe in science is not accurate entirely.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#27

Post by jayd16 » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

I'm all for nuclear but the safety record talk always seems disingenuous or at least obtuse to me when the stats focus on day to day operations but the fears are about worst case scenarios.

I also feel like the industry would do better if it rallied behind specific new technologies so politicians could rally behind molten salt reactors (or what have you) and placate fears about "old nuclear" designs.

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#28

Post by notJim » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage.

However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drilling are incredibly damaging to the environment, but theoretically work is done to mitigate/restore the areas. Of course, they're essentially turning the entire planet (or large, currently-inhabited swaths of it anyway) into an exclusion zone, but unfortunately there is another cognitive bias humans have where we under-rate long-term risks.

I've been a nuclear skeptic, but gradually I'm coming around to it. At this point the main questions I have are whether it can be done cheap enough. It seems like price is really driving renewable adoption at this point, so maybe green policies should focus on subsidizing storage and nuclear instead?

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#29

Post by rriepe » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #27

notRobot wrote: post #4

For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…

I'm all for nuclear but the safety record talk always seems disingenuous or at least obtuse to me when the stats focus on day to day operations but the fears are about worst case scenarios. I also feel like the industry would do better if it rallied behind specific new technologies so politicians could rally behind molten salt reactors (or what have you) and placate fears about "old nuclear" designs.

I wish one person who mentioned the long game would also mention that nuclear accidents can make a place uninhabitable for thousands of years.

If I had a dollar for every time a pro-nuclear person (not that I'm not) ignored that, or peak uranium...

Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform

#30

Post by nautilus12 » Sun, Aug 30, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

sg47 wrote: post #6

manfredo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, Republicans support nuclear at a substantially higher rate than Democrats: > A 2019 Gallup poll [1] found that 65 percent of Republicans strongly favored nuclear energy but only 42 percent of Democrats did so. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-...

I stand corrected then. I wonder why for a cohort that doesn't believe in science.

Cohort that doesn't believe in science?? I think you need to examine your assumptions (generalizations)